Is the time right to look again at the progress of the Russian policy for empowering foreign countries to reach full ICBM Nuclear capabilities?

A rather lengthy report now 8 years old has had a number of it's points come to pass, missing the prediction for this particular launch by just a single year. This highlights much of the quiet detail not discussed in the general media.

In light of this, and in light of other geopolitically backed ICBM developments in North Korea, are NATO right to take it's responbility for missile defence (modern interceptor missiles and x-band radar) in allied regions more seriously in the next decade?

LE

LE

The only problem with the American system is that it does not work very well! The Russians tried to develop a similar missile but were unable to get it to hit its test targets. So they went to using nuclear warheads in there ABM missiles. I think the Russians fear that this is a sneaky attempt by the Americans to have a first strike capability which could destroy Moscow before they had time to react!

Better information gathering could provide a better counter than a missile which does not seem to work to well.

If some rogue regime wanted to attack America or Europe they would not use an ICBM.

Ostvic is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
"Society only recognises cream as 'real' on the basis that it was packaged for Waitrose rather than Aldi,"

LE

Interceptor Missile tests seems to be reporting some fairly consistent success as of late. Perhaps not completely infalliable, but most approve of something that worked in an increasing majority of times than simply nothing at all.

If there is news to the contrary we should note it. That the Russians tried to develop a similar capability but failed and subsequently gave up is interesting, but I don't think it's much of a yardstick to measure by.

So if the legitimacy of free market trading of nuclear, biological and radiological technology and assistance to advance missile delivery systems to pariah states isn't necessarily a questionable offence anymore, is there any firm basis to raise objections to advancing missile defence programs (where ever they may be placed)?

LE

Interceptor Missile tests seems to be reporting some fairly consistent success as of late. Perhaps not completely infalliable, but most approve of something that worked in an increasing majority of times than simply nothing at all.

If there is news to the contrary we should to note it. That the Russians tried to develop a similar capability but failed and subsequently gave up is interesting, but I don't think it's much of a yardstick to measure by.

So if the legitimacy of free market trading of nuclear, biological and radiological technology and assistance to advance missile delivery systems to pariah states isn't necessarily a questionable offence anymore, is there any firm basis to raise objections to advancing missile defence programs (where ever they may be placed)?

It's not so much that it isn't a questionable offence but that it is difficult to stop. If Russia wishes to sell IRBM's and nuclear reactors around the world then yes it should expect other nations to take all necessary measures to defend themselves.

Russia is worried because if the ABM does prove a success, and the USA ramps up production it will make the Russian Nuclear Deterrent useless and they could not afford another arms race. Or they may be just worried that they are really armed with nuclear warheads!

Ostvic is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
"Society only recognises cream as 'real' on the basis that it was packaged for Waitrose rather than Aldi,"

LE

You mentioned NATO but I'm anaware of any members barring the US who have any significant ABM programmes.

The Israeli's have had their arrow ABM system deployed for the best part of a decade yet we don't even have a requirement. I'm sure we'll pay for it someday.

We could easily and cheaply have procured an ABM capability simply by using the Mk41 VLS system on our Daring class with the provision to buy SM3s. One of these babies knocked out an old satellite last year whilst it trundled 240km AGL. Its still partly a work in progress but I think we can expect it to have a serious ASAT capability in the near future.

I doubt whether one of these would pose a serious threat to incoming ICBMs hence should not affect our deterrence posture vis a vis the fUSSR but should provide theatre IRBM defence.

There was some talk about PAAMS being given an ABM capability however it's probably been cancelled or in the process of being rejected as too expensive. I doubt it's large enough to offer anything but a low level of ABM capability anyway.

I ever did understand why we didn't stick Mk41s on the Type 45s. I'll bet it would have been the cheaper option....

LE

If any western country ever gets hit by weapons of mass destruction they'll arrive in test tubes delivered by a courier company. And where they'll come from . . .maybe Liverpool or Lisbon, Baton Rouge or Bolivia, Darwin or Delhi.

The only thing you can be sure of is that the killing will have been started by somebody nobody has ever heard of, working in a place you couldn't care less about, with Satan bugs you can't even pronounce the names of, and that the killers will hate us westerners for some massacre we forgot about five minutes after it happened.

Oh yes, and the other thing you can be sure of is that none of your weapons will be worth a pinch of excreta. They don't frighten people who have no reason to go on living anyway.

LE

You mentioned NATO but I'm anaware of any members barring the US who have any significant ABM programmes.

The Israeli's have had their arrow ABM system deployed for the best part of a decade yet we don't even have a requirement. I'm sure we'll pay for it someday.

We could easily and cheaply have procured an ABM capability simply by using the Mk41 VLS system on our Daring class with the provision to buy SM3s. One of these babies knocked out an old satellite last year whilst it trundled 240km AGL. Its still partly a work in progress but I think we can expect it to have a serious ASAT capability in the near future.

I doubt whether one of these would pose a serious threat to incoming ICBMs hence should not affect our deterrence posture vis a vis the fUSSR but should provide theatre IRBM defence.

There was some talk about PAAMS being given an ABM capability however it's probably been cancelled or in the process of being rejected as too expensive. I doubt it's large enough to offer anything but a low level of ABM capability anyway.

I ever did understand why we didn't stick Mk41s on the Type 45s. I'll bet it would have been the cheaper option....

There was even some talk that the reason the Iranians stopped in 2003 was because they achieved what they set out to do. What that was is anyone's educated guess.
If they did produce a bomb it would be for there IRBM's not some lone ICBM.
Concerning the boat that was stopped, when you consider that IRGC members seem to pop up in places like Iraq to test there shiny new RPG-29's and have used Syria as a staging point to supply Hezbollah, what kit do they want from Syria? Or was this cargo destined for Gaza?

Ostvic is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
"Society only recognises cream as 'real' on the basis that it was packaged for Waitrose rather than Aldi,"

LE

If any western country ever gets hit by weapons of mass destruction they'll arrive in test tubes delivered by a courier company. And where they'll come from . . .maybe Liverpool or Lisbon, Baton Rouge or Bolivia, Darwin or Delhi.

The only thing you can be sure of is that the killing will have been started by somebody nobody has ever heard of, working in a place you couldn't care less about, with Satan bugs you can't even pronounce the names of, and that the killers will hate us westerners for some massacre we forgot about five minutes after it happened.

Oh yes, and the other thing you can be sure of is that none of your weapons will be worth a pinch of excreta. They don't frighten people who have no reason to go on living anyway.

That's a psychological effect that has been in place since the cold war, more commonly known as the poor mans nuke/dirty bomb/suitcase nuke.

Standard forms deterrence, international conventions & regulations, and extremely tight security controls does what it can to prevent states clashes on that front.

Your concern is with non-state actors who have no reason to go on living (lets just call them evil muftis and their brainwashed cults for want of a better term). The simple fact is that it's very difficult for non-state actors to acquire the materials & support required to launch such events. Not impossible granted, but bloody difficult. Those that can/do/have however can be traced back through a complex network of sources.

Consider a fictional scenario of a mass polonium attack & a couple of suitcase nukes set in major cities all over the UK. After the smoke and dust settled and the material was say traced back to Russia, we'd be at War, with the option to nuke fcuk out of them. If Russia knew they weren't responsible, but some black market b@rstwerds were, do you think under the threat of nukes and all out with NATO that they'd stand off and go, "oh yeah?". Or do you think they'd boot fcuk out of an entire nation associated with setting them & us up, and we'd all be along for the ride. Of course there would be pleas for mercy, and don't do it and all that - but you can imagine they'd go unheard.

In actual effect non-state actors are by proxy state-actors. Even purely ideological based organisations can be traced back to states through personal connections, and thus you do have a means to enact countermeasures, counter strikes, and effectively offer some means of deterrence (perhaps at an unconventional level but means none the less).

So for the sake of argument, if some mufti death unit somehow launched an attack of large scale, can or will the victim nations find means to retaliate? Psychologically even the most evil of muftis and their laymen support know there is the means and in some circles even the will abroad to actually collapse one of the pillars of Islam - rendering one their core tenets of faith and ideology incapable of being practiced for millennia. That puts the shite right up all of them.

Even with the knowledge of having a number of those bases already covered, it's still worth considering conventional means of deterrence such as ABM programs and standing levels of defence in order to "regulate business" between state sponsors and their often flavour of the month proxies.